LEGAL PRINCIPLE: EVIDENCE LAW – Affidavit Evidence – Contradictions Within Applicant’s Own Affidavits – No Requirement for Oral Evidence
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The court below was concerned with the intrinsic contradictions in the affidavits filed by the appellant in support of his application and not the contradictions apparent between the appellant's affidavits on one hand and the respondent's affidavit on the other. While in the former case the contradictions do not call for the hearing of oral evidence in order to resolve them; in the latter case the contradictions must be resolved by oral evidence before the court below could rely on any of the contradicting depositions to reach a decision.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Uwais, CJN, in Momah v. VAB Petroleum Inc. (2000) NLC-1831995(SC) at pp. 5–6; Paras E–A.
"The court below was concerned with the intrinsic contradictions in the affidavits filed by the appellant in support of his application and not the contradictions apparent between the appellant's affidavits on one hand and the respondent's affidavit on the other. While in the former case the contradictions do not call for the hearing of oral evidence in order to resolve them; in the latter case the contradictions must be resolved by oral evidence before the court below could rely on any of the contradicting depositions to reach a decision."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Contradictions within a party’s own affidavits (intrinsic) do not require oral evidence for resolution—the court can resolve them on the face of the affidavits. However, contradictions between parties’ affidavits require oral evidence to resolve. This distinction recognizes that internal inconsistencies are matters of documentary evaluation, while inter-party conflicts involve credibility that demands cross-examination. The court need not descend into oral hearing for a party’s self-contradictions; they weaken that party’s case without external resolution. The onus is on the party to present coherent, consistent affidavit evidence.